I think it would not be beneficial if we stopped referring to these reptiles we keep and breed as "Pets"

They are in fact, not pets -- They are "Confined Display Animals" of an educational nature. Indeed, keeping and observing them does inspire a great deal of thought and wonder on so many levels.

There is always this discussion on how we're all getting rich at the expense of Mother Nature in the media. While there may be a very few that make a better than average living in the trade. Most people break even at best. If there was a profitable economic model for the trade, I'm sure the big corporations would be involved. They are not. Just like a few entertainers make it big and a few athletes make it big, so goes the herp business. Those that make it big are few and far between; an infinitesimally small segment of the whole.

We all know there is little money to be made in keeping and breeding herps. For the most part, progeny is bartered in trade for new acquisitions, enabling one's expanded appreciation of the hobby. Or sold, to defray costs. It's a money looser for most, but it's something we obviously love and put a great deal of ourselves into.

A more accurate economic description of the "Business" should be as a Commodity Market and the Herps themselves considered Propagated Livestock, not "Pets".

In an effort to remove the hysteria and inaccuracies in the media, lets all try to start with a more realistic and more accurate terminology of what we do. As I've just described for example. I'm open to suggestions. We have got to stop allowing those that oppose us and those that don't understand us to couch the terms and to frame the discussion. Very inaccurately, I might add.

Just my 2 cents.

jsc


-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"

John Crickmer

[ Show Entire Thread ]